# Obama Supreme Dictator



## vraiblonde

I was talking to my mom a few weeks ago and she said that Obama is going to declare martial law and overturn the Constitution so he can remain president.  She said that her friend, who is really really up on politics, told her about this plot, and there's a group dedicated to it on the internet.

I thought, "Crackpot."

But what I said was, "Well, that would be a great way to piss off the public enough that they go burn his ass out of the White House and put him and his whole family's heads on a pike."

But now, with so many domestic terrorist attacks on his watch and the fracture of the stupid GOP losing their mind about Donald Trump, it's not seeming so crazy.  And we know that there are an awful lot of people who would go along with it, and many of them are Republican Congresscritters.  This is a great conspiracy theory because it's plausible; you can rationalize it, and actually imagine realistically Obama doing something like that, and you can certainly imagine his bots supporting it, and you can also imagine the Republicans in Congress going along with it after a cursory protest to make it seem like they were opposed.

I'll have to flesh my theory out more...


----------



## mAlice

vraiblonde said:


> I was talking to my mom a few weeks ago and she said that Obama is going to declare martial law and overturn the Constitution so he can remain president.  She said that her friend, who is really really up on politics, told her about this plot, and there's a group dedicated to it on the internet.
> 
> I thought, "Crackpot."
> 
> But what I said was, "Well, that would be a great way to piss off the public enough that they go burn his ass out of the White House and put him and his whole family's heads on a pike."
> 
> But now, with so many domestic terrorist attacks on his watch and the fracture of the stupid GOP losing their mind about Donald Trump, it's not seeming so crazy.  And we know that there are an awful lot of people who would go along with it, and many of them are Republican Congresscritters.  This is a great conspiracy theory because it's plausible; you can rationalize it, and actually imagine realistically Obama doing something like that, and you can certainly imagine his bots supporting it, and you can also imagine the Republicans in Congress going along with it after a cursory protest to make it seem like they were opposed.
> 
> I'll have to flesh my theory out more...



I've thought this might be a possibility for some time now, and I'm not alone.  The climate is perfect for a whole lot of "conspiracy theorist" crap to hit the fan.


----------



## PJay

Is this a trap? Can I agree? If I do, will you call me a "crackpot"? Is Board Mommy coming around to many people's fears?


----------



## kwillia

Well hey now... if this conspiracy theory does come about at least we'll know for sure why the government has already stockpiled the ammo, body containers and portable check-point stands... (Remember all of those threads from the end of his first term which included videos and photocopies of the RFPs?)


----------



## Midnightrider

JFC, this #### again :bangshead:

the conspiracy was supposed to start with obama taking all of our guns, since that hasn't happened it is highly unlikely that he could install himself as dictator even if he wanted to. Not to mention, what the ehll is he waiting for if that is his plan?


----------



## GURPS

Midnightrider said:


> JFC, this #### again :bangshead:





<-------  the door is that way, if you don't like the conversation


----------



## Midnightrider

GURPS said:


> <-------  the door is that way, if you don't like the conversation



right back atcha durtard


----------



## Monello

Midnightrider said:


> , what the ehll is he waiting for if that is his plan?



Waiting for the NBA finals to conclude.  That or he's waiting till ehll freezes over.


----------



## vraiblonde

Midnightrider said:


> JFC, this #### again :bangshead:
> 
> the conspiracy was supposed to start with obama taking all of our guns, since that hasn't happened it is highly unlikely that he could install himself as dictator even if he wanted to. Not to mention, what the ehll is he waiting for if that is his plan?



My guess is he's trying not to get his head on a pike.

I'm solidifying my CT, and it goes like this:

Every terrorist attack, every small right that is curtailed is a test.  How far can they go?  Here?  How about here?  When we take it without protest, they push us back a little more - here?  At some point we go, "No sir, you get your ass right back where you belong  " and they back it off.  Wait for us to settle down or get distracted, then...here?

Obama (or whoever) isn't just going to repeal the Second Amendment in one swell foop.  That would cause an enormous riot and, again, he (along with our "representatives") is trying not to endanger himself.  So they take baby steps.  Every time there is some shooting - that his policies are enabling and encouraging, by the way - the first thing they do is call for disarming the American people.  "We need to ban guns!  We need to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people!"  Now, they know damn good and well that they can pass laws until they're blue in the face and it won't make a damn bit of difference to a criminal or crazy person - anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows what.  But we're a stupid people and there are an awful lot of us who can't follow logic and go, "Yeah!  Banning guns will keep criminals from breaking the law!"  Unfortunately there's not quite enough dumbasses in this country for them to be able to disarm us without a fight.  So they chip away and indoctrinate the next generation.

I understand fully why our masters would want to disarm us.  Makes perfect sense - how can they control and subjugate us if we're shooting at them?

What I don't quite have pieced together is why they want this country overrun with criminal illegal immigrants, drug dealers, and terrorists.  What's the return on that?  Unless it's some crazy Helter Skelter thing where we'll get fed up and declare war with the criminal element, who will win due to their superior sense of anything goes and all's fair, and then Charles Manson can come out of hiding and take over because they'll be too stupid to run a successful country and will need a leader.

Or something like that.  I'm working on it....


----------



## Midnightrider

vraiblonde said:


> My guess is he's trying not to get his head on a pike.
> 
> I'm solidifying my CT, and it goes like this:
> 
> Every terrorist attack, every small right that is curtailed is a test.  How far can they go?  Here?  How about here?  When we take it without protest, they push us back a little more - here?  At some point we go, "No sir, you get your ass right back where you belong  " and they back it off.  Wait for us to settle down or get distracted, then...here?
> 
> Obama (or whoever) isn't just going to repeal the Second Amendment in one swell foop.  That would cause an enormous riot and, again, he (along with our "representatives") is trying not to endanger himself.  So they take baby steps.  Every time there is some shooting - that his policies are enabling and encouraging, by the way - the first thing they do is call for disarming the American people.  "We need to ban guns!  We need to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people!"  Now, they know damn good and well that they can pass laws until they're blue in the face and it won't make a damn bit of difference to a criminal or crazy person - anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows what.  But we're a stupid people and there are an awful lot of us who can't follow logic and go, "Yeah!  Banning guns will keep criminals from breaking the law!"  Unfortunately there's not quite enough dumbasses in this country for them to be able to disarm us without a fight.  So they chip away and indoctrinate the next generation.
> 
> I understand fully why our masters would want to disarm us.  Makes perfect sense - how can they control and subjugate us if we're shooting at them?
> 
> What I don't quite have pieced together is why they want this country overrun with criminal illegal immigrants, drug dealers, and terrorists.  What's the return on that?  Unless it's some crazy Helter Skelter thing where we'll get fed up and declare war with the criminal element, who will win due to their superior sense of anything goes and all's fair, and then Charles Manson can come out of hiding and take over because they'll be too stupid to run a successful country and will need a leader.
> 
> Or something like that.  I'm working on it....



so in his attempt to not get his head on a pike he is slow playing it to the point that he will never be dictator? Thats the reality, it would be nearly impossible for him to get that done before january 2017, and every day that goes by makes it less likely.


----------



## vraiblonde

Midnightrider said:


> so in his attempt to not get his head on a pike he is slow playing it to the point that he will never be dictator? Thats the reality, it would be nearly impossible for him to get that done before january 2017, and every day that goes by makes it less likely.



Obama is a figurehead - all presidents are.  He, like the presidents before him, is just a tool of a much larger and more powerful group.  That part I have down solid.  So I say "Obama" but only because he happens to be president at this particular time and if SHTF it will be his particular head on that pike.


----------



## vraiblonde

Mid, this is a real question:

Haven't you been at least a little bit suspicious about the hysteria coming from the Big Three over Donald Trump?  Even a little bit?  It doesn't seem even slightly overreactionary to you?  The language and rhetoric that's coming from the Democrats AND the Republicans AND the media?  Doesn't it seem odd that they've all united to defeat one lone man?


----------



## Midnightrider

vraiblonde said:


> Mid, this is a real question:
> 
> Haven't you been at least a little bit suspicious about the hysteria coming from the Big Three over Donald Trump?  Even a little bit?  It doesn't seem even slightly overreactionary to you?  The language and rhetoric that's coming from the Democrats AND the Republicans AND the media?  Doesn't it seem odd that they've all united to defeat one lone man?


Not really. The left hates him because he says a lot of bigoted ####. The right hates him because he is a liberal pretending to be a republican AND he says a lot of bigoted crap. The media hates him because it is good for business and he says a lot of bigoted crap. 
I don't see anything surprising there. 

The only surprising thing is that so many are buying what he is selling, hope and change.


----------



## vraiblonde

Midnightrider said:


> Not really.



Okay.  Well, you're certainly not in the minority.


----------



## Larry Gude

So, if I have this right, then, Trump would be part of The Conspiracy and his role is to be the last straw in the pretext, the fascist, Hitlerian threat that the conspirators need to take those last couple of steps. And Dubbya would certainly be part of the plan because he created the mechanisms and laws to grease the skids for Obama by giving us the TSA, DHS and Patriot Act as well as the financial lever, TARP, to put the squeeze on any large shareholders who might get uppity. 

And, taking this further, Palin had to be in on it to remove ANY plausibility of a McCain presidency who, now that I think of it, had to be in on it by choosing her, thereby throwing the election in '12 to Obama. So, John is in. So, Sarah isn't in on it. Just a pawn. 

And Romney, who was winning, big, after the first debate, has to be part of it, too. Willingly tossing out the winning formula for the good of The Conspiracy. 

Now, who benefits if Obama falls to the angry pitchfork and torch mob? Hmm....who ascends if....



Holy Joe-tastic, Batman!!!!!  BIDEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  He's behind the whole thing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Larry Gude

But, if that is all so, what does Dubbya get out of it? And McCain and Romney??? Why would they go along? To protect themselves? With us or against us????


----------



## vraiblonde

Larry Gude said:


> So, if I have this right, then, Trump would be part of The Conspiracy and his role is to be the last straw in the pretext, the fascist, Hitlerian threat that the conspirators need to take those last couple of steps.



That actually makes sense as a part of the proceedings.




> Holy Joe-tastic, Batman!!!!!  BIDEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  He's behind the whole thing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



The Usual Suspects.  It's always the guy who flies below the radar.  "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."


----------



## Larry Gude

vraiblonde said:


> That actually makes sense as a part of the proceedings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Usual Suspects.  It's always the guy who flies below the radar.




Joe Biden, meek and mild. Mr. Big.  

I KNEW it!!!!


----------



## Vince

vraiblonde said:


> I was talking to my mom a few weeks ago and she said that Obama is going to declare martial law and overturn the Constitution so he can remain president.  She said that her friend, who is really really up on politics, told her about this plot, and there's a group dedicated to it on the internet.
> 
> I thought, "Crackpot."
> 
> But what I said was, "Well, that would be a great way to piss off the public enough that they go burn his ass out of the White House and put him and his whole family's heads on a pike."
> 
> But now, with so many domestic terrorist attacks on his watch and the fracture of the stupid GOP losing their mind about Donald Trump, it's not seeming so crazy.  And we know that there are an awful lot of people who would go along with it, and many of them are Republican Congresscritters.  This is a great conspiracy theory because it's plausible; you can rationalize it, and actually imagine realistically Obama doing something like that, and you can certainly imagine his bots supporting it, and you can also imagine the Republicans in Congress going along with it after a cursory protest to make it seem like they were opposed.
> 
> I'll have to flesh my theory out more...


 I don't think he has enough time left in office to complete his agenda.  He knows if Hillary gets in there, she will complete it and he wants to be the dictator in chief.  The theory of him declaring martial law is not so far fetched anymore, but first he would have to disarm the public or he would have a civil war on his hands.  And even if he makes laws to disarm the public, most Americans won't give in.


----------



## Larry Gude

Vince said:


> I don't think he has enough time left in office to complete his agenda.  .



Which makes it all the more likely.


----------



## mAlice

vraiblonde said:


> That actually makes sense as a part of the proceedings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Usual Suspects.  It's always the guy who flies below the radar.  "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."



Nope....bigger than the "usual" suspects, unless you're including the Bilderberg Group, NWO Agenda, Bohemian Grove, Authoritarian Creep, Georgia Guide Stones, ...and what about that unelected and unregulated branch of government (Administrative)?  



> ...three branches held together through a type of outward pressure – each holding the other in place through their countervailing forces. Add a fourth branch and the structure begins to collapse. That is precisely what is happening as federal agencies grow beyond the traditional controls and oversight of the legislative and executive branches



https://jonathanturley.org/2013/05/26/the-rise-of-the-fourth-branch-of-government/

There is a lot of corruption going on, and the deeper you dig, the scarier it gets.  It also reaches the point of ridiculousness, and ends up being discussed in the Conspiracy Theories thread, because who would actually buy into it all?  Seriously?  Why would anyone believe that our government would do anything to harm us?


----------



## vraiblonde

mAlice said:


> There is a lot of corruption going on, and the deeper you dig, the scarier it gets.  It also reaches the point of ridiculousness, and ends up being discussed in the Conspiracy Theories thread, because who would actually buy into it all?  Seriously?  Why would anyone believe that our government would do anything to harm us?



It's one of those things that you can't do anything about it, so you might as well live your life.  For some reason, humans have this desire to "fix" it.  And if they can't fix it, they deny it exists.  To do otherwise makes them feel helpless, and their egos won't allow that.

It may not be all that, but anyone who thinks what you see is what you get with government is a fool.


----------



## vraiblonde

mAlice said:


> Nope....bigger than the "usual" suspects, unless you're including the Bilderberg Group, NWO Agenda, Bohemian Grove, Authoritarian Creep, Georgia Guide Stones, ...and what about that unelected and unregulated branch of government (Administrative)?



I was talking about the movie, The Usual Suspects, where (hopefully everybody has seen this movie by now) the mystery man they all fear and are searching for is right in front of their face, in an unlikely form and the last one you'd suspect.


----------



## mAlice

vraiblonde said:


> I was talking about the movie, The Usual Suspects, where (hopefully everybody has seen this movie by now) the mystery man they all fear and are searching for is right in front of their face, in an unlikely form and the last one you'd suspect.



I figured you did, but I also thought you meant it as a euphemism.


----------



## vraiblonde

mAlice said:


> I figured you did, but I also thought you meant it as a euphemism.


----------



## TheLibertonian

oh but wait I thought the plot was to infect american service members with ebola and then spread it here in america in order to cause a crisis and cease power with the CDC.


----------



## kwillia

TheLibertonian said:


> oh but wait I thought the plot was to infect american service members with ebola and then spread it here in america in order to cause a crisis and cease power with the CDC.


Yeah, but we caught on so now its the ZIKA!


----------



## PsyOps

vraiblonde said:


> I was talking to my mom a few weeks ago and she said that Obama is going to declare martial law and overturn the Constitution so he can remain president.  She said that her friend, who is really really up on politics, told her about this plot, and there's a group dedicated to it on the internet.
> 
> I thought, "Crackpot."
> 
> But what I said was, "Well, that would be a great way to piss off the public enough that they go burn his ass out of the White House and put him and his whole family's heads on a pike."
> 
> But now, with so many domestic terrorist attacks on his watch and the fracture of the stupid GOP losing their mind about Donald Trump, it's not seeming so crazy.  And we know that there are an awful lot of people who would go along with it, and many of them are Republican Congresscritters.  This is a great conspiracy theory because it's plausible; you can rationalize it, and actually imagine realistically Obama doing something like that, and you can certainly imagine his bots supporting it, and you can also imagine the Republicans in Congress going along with it after a cursory protest to make it seem like they were opposed.
> 
> I'll have to flesh my theory out more...



When I hear people talk about this I always remember back to when Obama talked about that 'Civilian National Security Force'.  If this were something he was working on, who would they be?  Federal agents?  Black Lives Matter?  The EPA has been armed.  Thousands of automatic weapons disappeared under the guise of a 'failed program' called 'Fast and Furious'.  The fed has been buying up ammo; lots of it.


----------



## mAlice

PsyOps said:


> When I hear people talk about this I always remember back to when Obama talked about that 'Civilian National Security Force'.  If this were something he was working on, who would they be?  Federal agents?  Black Lives Matter?  The EPA has been armed.  Thousands of automatic weapons disappeared under the guise of a 'failed program' called 'Fast and Furious'.  The fed has been buying up ammo; lots of it.



In light of stuff like this ( https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2016/06/18/idaho-syrian-muslim-refugees-rape-minor/ ) Maybe Obama's National Security Force has already been implemented, just not named or singled out.  I hear stories about cops turning the other when anything happens with Muslims, yet providing them protection on the off chance an American should say anything to hurt their feelings, then their Johnny on the Spot to protect the animals.


----------



## PsyOps

mAlice said:


> In light of stuff like this ( https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2016/06/18/idaho-syrian-muslim-refugees-rape-minor/ ) Maybe Obama's National Security Force has already been implemented, just not named or singled out.  I hear stories about cops turning the other when anything happens with Muslims, yet providing them protection on the off chance an American should say anything to hurt their feelings, then their Johnny on the Spot to protect the animals.



Which (sort of) explains the whole Omar Mateen thing.  The guy showed all the signs of a problem brewing; and someone in the FBI, or someone outside the FBI, told the FBI to leave it alone.  

I can't find anything recent, but I believe there is still untold billions of unspent stimulus money.  "... just as well-funded..."  :shrug:


----------



## General Lee

PsyOps said:


> When I hear people talk about this I always remember back to when Obama talked about that 'Civilian National Security Force'.  If this were something he was working on, who would they be?  Federal agents?  Black Lives Matter?  The EPA has been armed.  Thousands of automatic weapons disappeared under the guise of a 'failed program' called 'Fast and Furious'.  The fed has been buying up ammo; lots of it.



On that note.......

http://video.foxnews.com/v/49619688...ion-on-guns-ammo/?intcmp=hpvid1#sp=show-clips


----------



## PsyOps

General Lee said:


> On that note.......
> 
> http://video.foxnews.com/v/49619688...ion-on-guns-ammo/?intcmp=hpvid1#sp=show-clips



Why is the IRS buying guns?  Does anyone find this just way out of the ordinary?  Where is congress in all of this?  No oversight?


----------



## vraiblonde

PsyOps said:


> Where is congress in all of this?



Who?

Oh, you mean Obama's lawmakers?


----------



## mAlice

PsyOps said:


> Why is the IRS buying guns?  Does anyone find this just way out of the ordinary?  Where is congress in all of this?  No oversight?



Good question.  More than out of the ordinary.  Congress has probably authorized it, so there's your oversight.


----------



## GURPS

mAlice said:


> Good question.  More than out of the ordinary.  Congress has probably authorized it, so there's your oversight.





IRS has to raid peoples homes  ... it is difficult getting intra-agency cooperation - lets have our *OWN* Armed Agents 


Postal Police
IRS Police
Dept of Ed. Police
EPA Police - for arresting tractors and such 
NOAA Police
HUD Police

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-on-70-fed-agencies-with-armed-divisions.html

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/03/robert-farago/full-list-of-armed-federal-agencies/




* Over 70 federal agencies have armed divisions, arrest authority over citizens *


Alaskan elected officials are demanding answers as to why it members of the federal government's Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Criminal Investigation Division as well as the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Office of Law Enforcement & Security, working in conjunction with the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation's (ADEC) Environmental Crimes Unit to conduct a raid on a legally operated gold mine that was suspected of fouling the water.

Despite no violations found nor arrests made, the only response Alaskan lawmakers received from the EPA was a statement which stated in part:

_Environmental law enforcement, like other forms of law enforcement, always involves the potential for physical, even armed, confrontation._​


----------



## PsyOps

GURPS said:


> IRS has to raid peoples homes  ... it is difficult getting intra-agency cooperation - lets have our *OWN* Armed Agents



What makes this particularly suspicious to me is... why now?  What has happened at this particular point in history, after all these decades of operation, that the IRS (or any other agency) requires to be armed like a law enforcement/military force?


----------



## Larry Gude

PsyOps said:


> What makes this particularly suspicious to me is... why now?  What has happened at this particular point in history, after all these decades of operation, that the IRS (or any other agency) requires to be armed like a law enforcement/military force?



Ft. Hood, Navy Yard. More goods guys with guns, yes?


----------



## PsyOps

Larry Gude said:


> Ft. Hood, Navy Yard. More goods guys with guns, yes?


----------



## Larry Gude

PsyOps said:


>



Well, if IRS agents are armed, and I am only guessing they are armed at work, that's more people who could have stopped a Ft. Hood or a Navy Yard-esque attack, yes?


----------



## PsyOps

Larry Gude said:


> Well, if IRS agents are armed, and I am only guessing they are armed at work, that's more people who could have stopped a Ft. Hood or a Navy Yard-esque attack, yes?



Last I checked, Ft. Hood and the Navy Yard are military installations.  The IRS is not military, nor are they law enforcement.  Arming the government is not what 2A speaks to.  So, while our government aims to strip guns away from CITIZENS (one gun at a time), they are arming themselves at every level of the government.  Those arms are not put in place to quell a terrorist attack; they are put in place to put fear into the American people that it's the government that is in control of us, and not the other way around.


----------



## TheLibertonian

Larry Gude said:


> Well, if IRS agents are armed, and I am only guessing they are armed at work, that's more people who could have stopped a Ft. Hood or a Navy Yard-esque attack, yes?



No man remember, the military isn't part of the government, it's the military. Come on get on script my man.


----------



## Larry Gude

TheLibertonian said:


> No man remember, the military isn't part of the government, it's the military. Come on get on script my man.



I'm not insensitive to the argument. I can see and argue a 'difference' but that's not my interest here. More so some sort of intellectual consistency with which to build off of. For instance, like TSA, forcing us to take our shows off, DHS, Pat Act, if a GOP potus said "We gotta arm the IRS" GOP'ers would cheer. If a D potus does it, it's an awful idea. The problem is what ANY president does, does not leave with them. So, if the IRS is training folks and there are a few more qualified people with sidearms walking around AND allowed to engage or support the cops if something happens, seems like a good idea to me.


----------



## Larry Gude

PsyOps said:


> Last I checked, Ft. Hood and the Navy Yard are military installations.  The IRS is not military, nor are they law enforcement.  Arming the government is not what 2A speaks to.  So, while our government aims to strip guns away from CITIZENS (one gun at a time), they are arming themselves at every level of the government.  Those arms are not put in place to quell a terrorist attack; they are put in place to put fear into the American people that it's the government that is in control of us, and not the other way around.



Last I checked, most members of the military and the gummint are...us.


----------



## This_person

Larry Gude said:


> if a GOP potus said "We gotta arm the IRS" GOP'ers would cheer. If a D potus does it, it's an awful idea.



I think it's an awful idea either way :shrug:


----------



## This_person

Larry Gude said:


> Last I checked, most members of the military and the gummint are...us.



NO, they're not.  They're the government.

You can agree that the military is separate from "government" - to a certain degree.  It makes sense for military to be armed like it makes sense for the police to be armed - they're all government, but it's their job.

The idea is simply that if one is in government service, one may have a weapon to conduct that government service (only); but, if one is not in government service, one may not (by the way many gun laws are trying to go).  Since the militia discussed in the 2A is non-government service people to protect the nation, and the prohibition provided in the 2A is against government intrusion into the citizens' rights, and the point was to allow for an overthrow of the government should one become necessary, it is immensely important to differentiate between citizens who are in government service and those who are not.


----------



## Larry Gude

This_person said:


> NO, they're not.  They're the government.
> 
> You can agree that the military is separate from "government" - to a certain degree.  It makes sense for military to be armed like it makes sense for the police to be armed - they're all government, but it's their job. .



I've met many of them. Yes, they are us. Friends, family, neighbors. I don't fear this enormous 'THEY' thing where the IRS is being armed to round people up and put us all in cages. Individuals, sure but even that requires an awful many good people to stand by or become active participants.


----------



## Larry Gude

This_person said:


> I think it's an awful idea either way :shrug:



An assumption; you think it's fine for you and I to be keeping an bearing?


----------



## This_person

Larry Gude said:


> I've met many of them. Yes, they are us. Friends, family, neighbors. I don't fear this enormous 'THEY' thing where the IRS is being armed to round people up and put us all in cages. Individuals, sure but even that requires an awful many good people to stand by or become active participants.



Certainly, citizens are citizens.  As a vet, I can tell you that I am a citizen, and was when I was in the service.  

The idea is not to fear the specific "IRS is being armed to round people up" conspiracy thought.  The idea is to understand that government should have limited arms, and citizens should not.  The question should never be, "why not" to arming government, it should always be "why".  And, the answer should be reviewed with extreme skepticism.  

Think FDR's internment camps.  Think Buck v. Bell - if they can do that, what stops them from killing "undesirables"?  I mean, 33 states had eugenics programs, and some didn't end until Reagan was president.


----------



## This_person

Larry Gude said:


> An assumption; you think it's fine for you and I to be keeping an bearing?



Of course, making the assumption you are not a felon convicted of improperly using a firearm at least twice.


----------



## Larry Gude

This_person said:


> Of course, making the assumption you are not a felon convicted of improperly using a firearm at least twice.



   Right. 

Well, OK, so, why wouldn't we want IRS agents to be packing?


----------



## This_person

Larry Gude said:


> Right.
> 
> Well, OK, so, why wouldn't we want IRS agents to be packing?



Wrong question.  Why _*would*_ we want/need to pay for IRS agents to be packing?  What purpose does them keeping and bearing arms that you pay for do for you as a taxpayer?  Go in with the assumption that they are not packing for their personal protection, because it does not seem to be a personal choice when you, the taxpayer, fund it.


----------



## Larry Gude

This_person said:


> Wrong question.  Why _*would*_ we want/need to pay for IRS agents to be packing?  What purpose does them keeping and bearing arms that you pay for do for you as a taxpayer?  Go in with the assumption that they are not packing for their personal protection, because it does not seem to be a personal choice when you, the taxpayer, fund it.



I, for one, and happy to have MORE guns than less. I have ZERO problem with our employees, trained and kept trained up, conceal carrying. I like cops taking cars home and using them. I like armed people. :shrug:


----------



## This_person

Larry Gude said:


> I, for one, and happy to have MORE guns than less. I have ZERO problem with our employees, trained and kept trained up, conceal carrying. I like cops taking cars home and using them. I like armed people. :shrug:



Why do you want more armed government?  Would you pay for the DMV being armed, while there's a sign on the door disallowing you to enter with a weapon?


----------



## Larry Gude

This_person said:


> Why do you want more armed government?  Would you pay for the DMV being armed, while there's a sign on the door disallowing you to enter with a weapon?



You're operating in a zero sum game. To say I agree that more armed civil servants is a good thing is not to say I agree less armed civilians is a good thing.


----------



## This_person

Larry Gude said:


> You're operating in a zero sum game. To say I agree that more armed civil servants is a good thing is not to say I agree less armed civilians is a good thing.



I don't think it's an either/or, I just think less armed government is better.  As I say, what is the purpose of them being armed?  Their not arming themselves - I'm all for that.  The government is arming them.  That's a very different thing.


----------



## PsyOps

Larry Gude said:


> Last I checked, most members of the military and the gummint are...us.



Are you purposely conflating two different things?  Arming our government in the capacity of their jobs vs those same people being armed as private citizens?


----------



## PsyOps

Larry Gude said:


> I, for one, and happy to have MORE guns than less. I have ZERO problem with our employees, trained and kept trained up, conceal carrying. I like cops taking cars home and using them. I like armed people. :shrug:



But that's not why they are arming agencies like the IRS.  They are being armed as enforcement/police-like forces.  They don't have these guns to protect themselves; they have them to use against US.


----------



## Larry Gude

PsyOps said:


> But that's not why they are arming agencies like the IRS.  They are being armed as enforcement/police-like forces.  They don't have these guns to protect themselves; they have them to use against US.



So, we come full circle. They are us.


----------



## TheLibertonian

Larry Gude said:


> So, we come full circle. They are us.



Larry. Get on script.

As soon as you work for the goernment (except the military and the literally millions of DoD contractors) your brain is instantly taken over by the Oppressor Virus, where you become a full supporter of violent oppression.


----------



## Gilligan

You really should seek help.


----------



## Larry Gude

TheLibertonian said:


> Larry. Get on script.
> 
> As soon as you work for the goernment (except the military and the literally millions of DoD contractors) your brain is instantly taken over by the Oppressor Virus, where you become a full supporter of violent oppression.



I was hoping that by pointing out that people working for the gummint are actually friends and family and neighbors that, at the end of every day know, like us or not, the live among us, the point that they're actually with us would kinda reveal itself.


----------



## TheLibertonian

Larry Gude said:


> I was hoping that by pointing out that people working for the gummint are actually friends and family and neighbors that, at the end of every day know, like us or not, the live among us, the point that they're actually with us would kinda reveal itself.



Silly Larry.

That would mean the lizard people who eat all government workers and then transform into them didn't exist. 

In all seriousness, since the Johnson/Nixon era it's been them vs. us, the government "for the people, by the people, and _of_ the people" has been replaced in peoples minds with "we the people versus them the government". 

I'm with you. I seem to be able to comprehend that people are people.


----------



## Larry Gude

TheLibertonian said:


> Silly Larry.
> 
> That would mean the lizard people who eat all government workers and then transform into them didn't exist.
> 
> In all seriousness, since the Johnson/Nixon era it's been them vs. us, the government "for the people, by the people, and _of_ the people" has been replaced in peoples minds with "we the people versus them the government".
> 
> I'm with you. I seem to be able to comprehend that people are people.



That said, the secrecy demands we allow, the threats we place,on people,  their pay, benefits, heck, jail, it's a concern.  That's part of why Snowden and others MUST be applauded and supported. It's harder for our friends and neighbors to help protect us if we allow all this massively excess secrecy to go on and on. We protect ourselves by protecting them.


----------



## TheLibertonian

Larry Gude said:


> That said, the secrecy demands we allow, the threats we place,on people,  their pay, benefits, heck, jail, it's a concern.  That's part of why Snowden and others MUST be applauded and supported. It's harder for our friends and neighbors to help protect us if we allow all this massively excess secrecy to go on and on. We protect ourselves by protecting them.



Gasp, you mean something obama actually can be criticized for? No Larry, we can only criticize him for setting up secret fema camps and planning to unleash ebola. We can't be distracted by such mundane things as illegal drone strikes on undeclared war targets and cracking down on whistleblowers and transparency advocates!


----------



## This_person

Larry Gude said:


> So, we come full circle. They are us.



So, if the government tells you that you cannot print something in the paper because they don't like it, it's the same as a publisher telling you that you can't print it?  Because, they are us, right?  There's no difference between government and citizen in your mind?


----------



## This_person

TheLibertonian said:


> We can't be distracted by such mundane things as illegal drone strikes on undeclared war targets and cracking down on whistleblowers and transparency advocates!


No no no, those are not done by Obama.  Those things are done by us, because there's no difference between the government and us.

Silly Lib.


----------



## PsyOps

Larry Gude said:


> So, we come full circle. They are us.



A government agency that was stood up to collect taxes now becomes a law-enforcement agency armed to the teeth, to be used against US....... is us.


----------



## PsyOps

This_person said:


> No no no, those are not done by Obama.  Those things are done by us, because there's no difference between the government and us.
> 
> Silly Lib.



That is, until some armed IRS agent comes banging on your door pointing an M4 at your face for not filing your taxes properly.  Suddenly they aren't us anymore.


----------



## This_person

PsyOps said:


> That is, until some armed IRS agent comes banging on your door pointing an M4 at your face for not filing your taxes properly.  Suddenly they aren't us anymore.



But, they're neighbors!  How could a government agent be someone different from us?  Like in WWII, when the Democrats under FDR put American citizens of Japanese ancestry into camps, that was just us doing it to us - the government was not involved.


----------



## PsyOps

This_person said:


> But, they're neighbors!  How could a government agent be someone different from us?  Like in WWII, when the Democrats under FDR put American citizens of Japanese ancestry into camps, that was just us doing it to us - the government was not involved.



Okie dokie.


----------



## Larry Gude

Well, you fellows are making this easy. I was trying to make the case that the gummint won't run too roughshod over us because the people that work in the gummint are our friends and neighbors and they'd only accept abusing folks so far. You're point seems to be clear; they won't care and they'll go along willingly. So, why bother? That level of force and willingness to use it can't be stopped. 

I'll just be here stuck hoping you're wrong.


----------



## This_person

Larry Gude said:


> Well, you fellows are making this easy. I was trying to make the case that the gummint won't run too roughshod over us because the people that work in the gummint are our friends and neighbors and they'd only accept abusing folks so far. You're point seems to be clear; they won't care and they'll go along willingly. So, why bother? That level of force and willingness to use it can't be stopped.
> 
> I'll just be here stuck hoping you're wrong.



Sadly, hope is not a good strategy.  Whether it was Nigerians selling Nigerians into slavery, Americans enslaving Americans, Germans killing Germans, Iraqis using chemical weapons against Iraqis, Americans putting Americans into internment camps, etc., history shows your fellow citizen will (when told to by "authority") hurt you.  "I was just following orders/the law", they will say, as they do it.

The point of the Revolutionary War with GB was to stop the citizens of England from hurting the citizens of England, remember?  And, a way to help ensure that the non-governmental citizens could keep the governmental citizens in check was to tell them it was a good idea - so good in fact that the "representative" government was not allowed to ever take it away from you - to own guns, and keep them on you whenever YOU choose.


----------



## PsyOps

Larry Gude said:


> Well, you fellows are making this easy. I was trying to make the case that the gummint won't run too roughshod over us because the people that work in the gummint are our friends and neighbors and they'd only accept abusing folks so far. You're point seems to be clear; they won't care and they'll go along willingly. So, why bother? That level of force and willingness to use it can't be stopped.
> 
> I'll just be here stuck hoping you're wrong.



So, you trust our government ------- because they are us?  :shrug:

The push for stomping on our 2A rights.  It can't happen, because they are us.  Certainly our neighbors, who work for the government, are our friends and would never stand for abusing the folks this far.
The push for ignoring due process.  Can't happen.
The Patriot Act.  Never happened.
Militarization of our police.  No way!

:shrug:


----------



## TheLibertonian

Like I said, the Oppressor Virus is injected as soon as you get into government. Shame but that's how it works.


----------



## Larry Gude

PsyOps said:


> So, you trust our government ------- because they are us?  :shrug:
> 
> The push for stomping on our 2A rights.  It can't happen, because they are us.  Certainly our neighbors, who work for the government, are our friends and would never stand for abusing the folks this far.
> The push for ignoring due process.  Can't happen.
> The Patriot Act.  Never happened.
> Militarization of our police.  No way!
> 
> :shrug:



You must feel terrifyingly oppressed. For better or for worse, I'm not even close to packing my bags for some other nation. How do you even get up in the morning with all this oppression? 

I'd suggest go do something with family, play some guitar, drink a beer, or 12, go for a drive, take a vacation, read a book, watch a movie, go see a show or a play or go to the range or...wait. Can you even do any of those things???


----------



## This_person

Larry Gude said:


> You must feel terrifyingly oppressed. For better or for worse, I'm not even close to packing my bags for some other nation. How do you even get up in the morning with all this oppression?
> 
> I'd suggest go do something with family, play some guitar, drink a beer, or 12, go for a drive, take a vacation, read a book, watch a movie, go see a show or a play or go to the range or...wait. Can you even do any of those things???



So, if all of freedom isn't gone, none of it is, right?  The TSA is pure freedom.  Not being able to keep and bear arms in MD unless the government thinks you have a good enough reason is pure freedom, right?


----------



## Larry Gude

This_person said:


> So, if all of freedom isn't gone, none of it is, right?  The TSA is pure freedom.  Not being able to keep and bear arms in MD unless the government thinks you have a good enough reason is pure freedom, right?



Do you honestly expect to have a conversation with me about this that is based on either/or?  

Here is an either/or if you want to play the 0 intellect game; you can live in Maryland OR any other state. So, what's your choice?


----------



## This_person

Larry Gude said:


> Do you honestly expect to have a conversation with me about this that is based on either/or?
> 
> Here is an either/or if you want to play the 0 intellect game; you can live in Maryland OR any other state. So, what's your choice?



So, you're saying the "terribly oppressed" issue you raised isn't really a valid one?  Because, that's pretty much an either/or issue you raised.


----------



## Larry Gude

This_person said:


> So, you're saying the "terribly oppressed" issue you raised isn't really a valid one?  Because, that's pretty much an either/or issue you raised.



No. I am saying what I said, I don't see the level of oppression you guys do.


----------



## This_person

Larry Gude said:


> No. I am saying what I said, I don't see the level of oppression you guys do.



I won't speak for Psy, but my issue is a lack of trust, not specific oppression to the point of moving out of the country.

I don't like many of the laws, and I certainly don't like the direction of many of the laws, but that doesn't mean I'm ready to move.  I'm ready to help change occur, not move.

You agree the TSA is unconstitution, yes?  Does that - in and of itself - mean that you should pack your bags?  That you have trouble getting up in the morning?  I certainly hope not, but it does imply that change is needed, and not in the direction of more government citizens armed or more governmental controls over who is armed and (more importantly) who is not.

Don't take things to the nth degree like that, and you won't be called on it.


----------



## Larry Gude

Not feeling an existential threat from my gummint isn't my idea of n'th degree.


----------



## PsyOps

Larry Gude said:


> You must feel terrifyingly oppressed. For better or for worse, I'm not even close to packing my bags for some other nation. How do you even get up in the morning with all this oppression?
> 
> I'd suggest go do something with family, play some guitar, drink a beer, or 12, go for a drive, take a vacation, read a book, watch a movie, go see a show or a play or go to the range or...wait. Can you even do any of those things???



You are one difficult person to keep up with.  You've spent a large portion of your time on here getting all  over things like the Patriot Act, TSA, NSA wiretapping, too many secrets, police brutality, etc... And now suddenly you have this very impressive trust in government.


----------



## Larry Gude

PsyOps said:


> You are one difficult person to keep up with.  You've spent a large portion of your time on here getting all  over things like the Patriot Act, TSA, NSA wiretapping, too many secrets, police brutality, etc... And now suddenly you have this very impressive trust in government.



Call it evolution. Those things are, clearly, NOT going away as my alarm is not remotely matched by most everyone elses. Thus, they are not going away because the voters are not fearful of them. It's like coming to grips with what the GOP is; just keep observing behavior. At some point, it simply is what it does. 

So, if that ain't changing, acceptance sets in and I'm left with trusting in my fellow citizens. Out of necessity.


----------



## PsyOps

Larry Gude said:


> Call it evolution. Those things are, clearly, NOT going away as my alarm is not remotely matched by most everyone elses. Thus, they are not going away because the voters are not fearful of them. It's like coming to grips with what the GOP is; just keep observing behavior. At some point, it simply is what it does.
> 
> So, if that ain't changing, acceptance sets in and I'm left with trusting in my fellow citizens. Out of necessity.



Trusting your fellow citizens to do what?


----------



## stgislander

Larry Gude said:


> Call it evolution. Those things are, clearly, NOT going away as my alarm is not remotely matched by most everyone elses. Thus, they are not going away because the voters are not fearful of them. It's like coming to grips with what the GOP is; just keep observing behavior. At some point, it simply is what it does.
> 
> So, if that ain't changing, acceptance sets in and I'm left with trusting in my fellow citizens. Out of necessity.



Sounds a lot like the frog in a pot of water to me.


----------



## Larry Gude

stgislander said:


> Sounds a lot like the frog in a pot of water to me.



Fair point and compared to 30 years ago, it would feel hot and damn hot. That said, a LOT of people would feel MUCH free-er today than 30 years ago so, on the whole, we still ain't Stalin's land.


----------



## Larry Gude

PsyOps said:


> Trusting your fellow citizens to do what?



To not treat me in a totalitarian manner.


----------



## PsyOps

Larry Gude said:


> To not treat me in a totalitarian manner.


----------



## This_person

Larry Gude said:


> Not feeling an existential threat from my gummint isn't my idea of n'th degree.



No, but suggesting one feels so oppressed that they must move out of the country and has trouble waking up in the morning is.


----------



## This_person

Larry Gude said:


> To not treat me in a totalitarian manner.



Based on what?  Given that Americans have imprisoned Americans for their ancestry, that Americans have sterilized Americans for not being desirable, that Americans have enslaved Americans, that Americans suggest ending the first amendment rights of other Americans with whom they disagree, that Americans have abandoned the fourth amendment in favor of "security" while other Americans who work for the government happily take that fourth amendment protection away....on what could you possibly base such trust?


----------



## PJay

Decided to put this here:


http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...jority-of-democrats-want-third-term-for-obama

That's messed up. Why even ask it...Obama doesn't need any ideas.


----------



## Larry Gude

This_person said:


> Based on what?  Given that Americans have imprisoned Americans for their ancestry, that Americans have sterilized Americans for not being desirable, that Americans have enslaved Americans, that Americans suggest ending the first amendment rights of other Americans with whom they disagree, that Americans have abandoned the fourth amendment in favor of "security" while other Americans who work for the government happily take that fourth amendment protection away....on what could you possibly base such trust?



Far be it for me to ruin your fears. Enjoy.    

That said, half our population feels FAR better about the nation and their fellow citizens these last 30-40 years than it seems you two do, having gained more control, not less, over their lives. Add in another 12% or so who have been struggling to be more free for over 160 years and seeing opportunity is real and not just talk and are certainly seeing it more so year by year and then add another 10% whose rights have improved the last 10-20 years who simply do not share your fears and concerns. 

As a white, straight male, I guess I'm supposed to feel like you guys, like blacks and women and gays used to and still do, sometimes, feel; threatened. That someone is coming for me or holding me done or just wants me to know my place and that I best not make waves and I get that, I see, logically, if you used to be on top simply by being white and straight and having a dick, yeah, to us, it is a decline. 

On the other hand, I live in a society where well over half the population is rising in their real freedoms and liberty and ability to pursue happiness as I always have. So, am I happy about be less dominant? In and of itself, sure. Is that assuaged or even a good thing that some of my freedoms are going to elevate others? 

Yeah. It is.


----------



## This_person

Larry Gude said:


> Far be it for me to ruin your fears. Enjoy.
> 
> That said, half our population feels FAR better about the nation and their fellow citizens these last 30-40 years than it seems you two do, having gained more control, not less, over their lives. Add in another 12% or so who have been struggling to be more free for over 160 years and seeing opportunity is real and not just talk and are certainly seeing it more so year by year and then add another 10% whose rights have improved the last 10-20 years who simply do not share your fears and concerns.
> 
> As a white, straight male, I guess I'm supposed to feel like you guys, like blacks and women and gays used to and still do, sometimes, feel; threatened. That someone is coming for me or holding me done or just wants me to know my place and that I best not make waves and I get that, I see, logically, if you used to be on top simply by being white and straight and having a dick, yeah, to us, it is a decline.
> 
> On the other hand, I live in a society where well over half the population is rising in their real freedoms and liberty and ability to pursue happiness as I always have. So, am I happy about be less dominant? In and of itself, sure. Is that assuaged or even a good thing that some of my freedoms are going to elevate others?
> 
> Yeah. It is.


How in the #### did you turn this into a racist, sexist thing?

The fourth amendment has nothing to do with race, sex, or anything beyond citizenship.  The second amendment?  Same thing.

I do not feel less dominant as a straight, white, male citizen.  I feel more dominated by government as a citizen.  You're throwing a new straw man into the argument when your last one failed, and this one fails, too.


----------



## Larry Gude

It's not clear in my mind if you don't understand this or don't want to understand this. Clearly, any reduction in rights, whether over in time or all at once, requires  the consent of the governed and when you consider that a lot of the reductions of rights that are going do serve the purposes and address the fears of women and minorities then it becomes perfectly clear that the reason why these things happen is because, by and large, the consent of the governed is given.

 The implication of that is that you and I are a minority and becoming smaller all the time therefore we are going to be more sensitive to it and look at more as a violation of our rights because it is in a reduction of our freedoms.. because it is and then you're stuck trying to see the bigger picture that the nation as a whole is doing better by the majority. That of course is small comfort when you're the one losing but when we were the ones winning we didn't see it that way. That doesn't make it fair or right but it does make it a lot more understandable and it does reveal that the greater good promoting the general welfare is happening.


----------



## This_person

Larry Gude said:


> It's not clear in my mind if you don't understand this or don't want to understand this. Clearly, any reduction in rights, whether over in time or all at once, requires  the consent of the governed and when you consider that a lot of the reductions of rights that are going do serve the purposes and address the fears of women and minorities then it becomes perfectly clear that the reason why these things happen is because, by and large, the consent of the governed is given.
> 
> The implication of that is that you and I are a minority and becoming smaller all the time therefore we are going to be more sensitive to it and look at more as a violation of our rights because it is in a reduction of our freedoms.. because it is and then you're stuck trying to see the bigger picture that the nation as a whole is doing better by the majority. That of course is small comfort when you're the one losing but when we were the ones winning we didn't see it that way. That doesn't make it fair or right but it does make it a lot more understandable and it does reveal that the greater good promoting the general welfare is happening.



So, tell me, how does the TSA improve the rights of women and minorities and LGBT while removing the dominance of the straight, white, male?  If your logic is accurate, this should be an easy answer.


----------



## Larry Gude

This_person said:


> So, tell me, how does the TSA improve the rights of women and minorities and LGBT while removing the dominance of the straight, white, male?  If your logic is accurate, this should be an easy answer.



Simple. If you and I were the majority or, if women and other minorities thought like we do, these things would NOT be happening. There'd be FAR too much pressure against it. The simple fact of the matter is we, people who think like you and I, who have similar life experiences and understandings of how things work, are the minority. It has been a bit of a revelation for me coming to grips with this but, like most revelations, it's been quite liberating to at least understand and be able to make sense of it.  

It's like the old maxim; if you sit down to a poker game and can't figure out who the sucker is, it's probably you. 

Put another way, if you and Psy and I are looking around at one thing after another that assaults our sensibilities and don;'t make any sense and, as we understand it, can not be, then one of two things is going on; either their is a conspiracy and hidden enemies and the system has been hijacked or...

...we're the minority and what is going on IS what is wanted by the majority. Again, there is NO way much of this is going on when white, straight, Christian males were the majority, the vast majority. 

And, again, this does not make it right nor fair. However, again, when we ruled, we didn't mind talking about more rights for women and minorities...just so long as it wasn't taking too much from us. 

So, put another way, it's become our turn in the barrel. Which is another great maxim of life. 

Now, what to do? Grant what is. The elevated status of women and minorities. Recognize that we're talking with at least our equals and, in many cases, our superiors, Respect them and that power. And, in my view, begin to organize. Not on race nor religion but on being the minority we've become; guys. We have rights, too. And approach them in a rational sense and not an emotional sense. 

For instance, guns. We see the right for ALL to keep and bare. Well, women, and a lot of minorities, don't like that. They don't trust us with them and, frankly, maybe they don't trust themselves with them. So, fight for the right for guys to keep and bear arms. They don't have to join our gun pride parade. They don't have to wear camo or dip. But we want to have our rights and for them to respect them. 

I know. I'm a ####ing genius.


----------



## Larry Gude

This_person said:


> How in the #### did you turn this into a racist, sexist thing? .



I didn't. It just is. The challenge is in seeing it for what it is.


----------



## Tilted

This_person said:


> How in the #### did you turn this into a racist, sexist thing?
> 
> The fourth amendment has nothing to do with race, sex, or anything beyond citizenship.  The second amendment?  Same thing.
> 
> I do not feel less dominant as a straight, white, male citizen.  I feel more dominated by government as a citizen.  You're throwing a new straw man into the argument when your last one failed, and this one fails, too.



Are you suggesting that Fourth Amendment rights depend on citizenship status? <--- Real question, I'm not sure that's what you're suggesting but I think it is, so I'm asking so as to be clear.


----------



## This_person

Larry Gude said:


> Simple. If you and I were the majority or, if women and other minorities thought like we do, these things would NOT be happening. There'd be FAR too much pressure against it. The simple fact of the matter is we, people who think like you and I, who have similar life experiences and understandings of how things work, are the minority. It has been a bit of a revelation for me coming to grips with this but, like most revelations, it's been quite liberating to at least understand and be able to make sense of it.
> 
> It's like the old maxim; if you sit down to a poker game and can't figure out who the sucker is, it's probably you.
> 
> Put another way, if you and Psy and I are looking around at one thing after another that assaults our sensibilities and don;'t make any sense and, as we understand it, can not be, then one of two things is going on; either their is a conspiracy and hidden enemies and the system has been hijacked or...
> 
> ...we're the minority and what is going on IS what is wanted by the majority. Again, there is NO way much of this is going on when white, straight, Christian males were the majority, the vast majority.
> 
> And, again, this does not make it right nor fair. However, again, when we ruled, we didn't mind talking about more rights for women and minorities...just so long as it wasn't taking too much from us.
> 
> So, put another way, it's become our turn in the barrel. Which is another great maxim of life.
> 
> Now, what to do? Grant what is. The elevated status of women and minorities. Recognize that we're talking with at least our equals and, in many cases, our superiors, Respect them and that power. And, in my view, begin to organize. Not on race nor religion but on being the minority we've become; guys. We have rights, too. And approach them in a rational sense and not an emotional sense.
> 
> For instance, guns. We see the right for ALL to keep and bare. Well, women, and a lot of minorities, don't like that. They don't trust us with them and, frankly, maybe they don't trust themselves with them. So, fight for the right for guys to keep and bear arms. They don't have to join our gun pride parade. They don't have to wear camo or dip. But we want to have our rights and for them to respect them.
> 
> I know. I'm a ####ing genius.



You reiterated that you think it is different, and why you think it should be seen as different, but you didn't answer the question which is how it is different for women/LGBT/minorities and straight, white (and now Christian) males.

According to the polls, the majority were against the ACA, yet it is law.  Majority or not, minority or not, the problem we've been telling you about is that government has too much power over the people.  Now, you can argue with some amount of validity that if we, the majority, want different we would vote someone else in.  Well, we did that and nothing actually changed (they didn't do what they said they'd do).

So, where does that leave us?  What do we do to achieve our goals?  Well, whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of white, straight, male, Christian - and women, and LGBT, and minorities, et al.

It would appear that we do not find the evils insufferable enough yet, because we still have hope that things can be  made better within the process.


----------



## Larry Gude

This_person said:


> According to the polls, the majority were against the ACA, yet it is law.  Majority or not, minority or not, the problem we've been telling you about is that government has too much power over the people.  Now, you can argue with some amount of validity that if we, the majority, want different we would vote someone else in.  Well, we did that and nothing actually changed (they didn't do what they said they'd do). .



No, it does not. If MOST people sincerely wanted the ACA gone, Obama would have lost in 2012 and everyone who voted for it would have, too. It would be gone. If most people never wanted it in the first place, it never would have happened. We can talk polls or we can talk votes. One matters. The other is subjective.


----------



## Larry Gude

This_person said:


> You reiterated that you think it is different, and why you think it should be seen as different, but you didn't answer the question which is how it is different for women/LGBT/minorities and straight, white (and now Christian) males. .



So, I don't have to go look it up, please rephrase and ask your question again.


----------



## Larry Gude

This_person said:


> So, where does that leave us?  What do we do to achieve our goals?  Well, whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.  .



And the right of the people, at least in Maryland, is to have things pretty much the way they are. You are still stuck looking at this as a minority. You can advocate for the changes YOU'D like, the things YOU want but you can no more argue for ending the federal or state gummint in the name of the people than anti gunners can argue they speak for the people. They speak for that part of the people. I say stop trying to argue guns as EVERYONE'S rights. Clearly, a LOT do not. I say argue for guns as YOUR, MY issue. "That we, guys, have the right to keep and bear arms. Join us if you like but we demand this right."


----------



## This_person

Tilted said:


> Are you suggesting that Fourth Amendment rights depend on citizenship status? <--- Real question, I'm not sure that's what you're suggesting but I think it is, so I'm asking so as to be clear.



I think it's ambiguous to suggest it is exclusive to citizens or not.  "The people" is the phrase to whom it applies...does that mean all people, or (as the preamble defines) we, the people of the United States of America?  There are SCOTUS decisions that imply the constitution is for citizens only, and others that imply the constitution is for all, and others that say only some things are limited.

My personal opinion is that the constitution is for citizens only.


----------



## This_person

Larry Gude said:


> So, I don't have to go look it up, please rephrase and ask your question again.



In what way does the TSA support the rights of women/LGBT/minorities while harming the rights of white, Christian, straight males?  Now, I'm not asking why you think people support it, I'm asking what it is about the TSA that is different for some than others - the "some" defined here as women/LGBT/minorities vs white men.


----------



## This_person

Larry Gude said:


> And the right of the people, at least in Maryland, is to have things pretty much the way they are. You are still stuck looking at this as a minority. You can advocate for the changes YOU'D like, the things YOU want but you can no more argue for ending the federal or state gummint in the name of the people than anti gunners can argue they speak for the people. They speak for that part of the people. I say stop trying to argue guns as EVERYONE'S rights. Clearly, a LOT do not. I say argue for guns as YOUR, MY issue. "That we, guys, have the right to keep and bear arms. Join us if you like but we demand this right."


That implies that citizens' rights are variable on sex, color, etc.  I do not feel they are.

I argue that we, the people, have the right to keep and bear arms, and if you don't want to exercise that right, don't.


----------



## Tilted

This_person said:


> I think it's ambiguous to suggest it is exclusive to citizens or not.  "The people" is the phrase to whom it applies...does that mean all people, or (as the preamble defines) we, the people of the United States of America?  There are SCOTUS decisions that imply the constitution is for citizens only, and others that imply the constitution is for all, and others that say only some things are limited.
> 
> My personal opinion is that the constitution is for citizens only.



There are some rights which (or contexts in which some rights) apply only to citizens. But Fourth Amendment rights - and due process rights in general - aren't limited to citizens. And, I believe, that is as it was intended by the framers.


----------



## This_person

Tilted said:


> There are some rights which (or contexts in which some rights) apply only to citizens. But Fourth Amendment rights - and due process rights in general - aren't limited to citizens. And, I believe, that is as it was intended by the framers.



I'm not sure I agree that is what the framers intended, nor what is appropriate.

There are decisions, of course, which support your position, and some which do not.  I tend to lean on the side of citizens having rights non-citizens do not.  That does not mean that non-citizens should not also have rights, it merely means that rights given to non-citizens are not promised, in my mind, to those people, but are rather given by the kindness of citizens.


----------



## Larry Gude

This_person said:


> In what way does the TSA support the rights of women/LGBT/minorities while harming the rights of white, Christian, straight males?  Now, I'm not asking why you think people support it, I'm asking what it is about the TSA that is different for some than others - the "some" defined here as women/LGBT/minorities vs white men.



Ok, thanks.  

OK, women and minorities, however many white Christian males, collectively the majority of voters in the US are happy or at least accepting of the TSA. That is self evident. If most thought like me, you'd never be able to do it in the first place. 

From a Constitutional standpoint, I see it as a clear violation. As an American it is an affront and an outrage. To most of us, it is acceptable security. It makes them feel safer, they like that so, it stays. I see it as a way of avoiding fixing the actual problem, of pretending to do something about it. I'm in the clear minority. 

So, it supports their rights, the clear majorities rights, whomever that includes, to at least feel safe. And it, to me, is exactly what Franklin was talking about; those who would sacrifice essential liberty for temporary security will have, and deserve, neither. The majority disagrees. Clearly.


----------



## Larry Gude

This_person said:


> That implies that citizens' rights are variable on sex, color, etc.  I do not feel they are.
> 
> I argue that we, the people, have the right to keep and bear arms, and if you don't want to exercise that right, don't.



That's fine to take that position. I submit it is a losing one. Time after time. 

Think of it this way; if women approached abortion from the standpoint of ALL of our right to privacy, it's a loser. Men wanted to prohibit their right to privacy on this issue. Didn't affect them. Some men were able to see past that and say "OK, it IS about all our privacy". Most didn't and many still don't. For guns, most of the strongest voices for those rights are male and most women take the same view men did on abortion; "I don't want you to have those rights as you're not talking for me. They don't apply to me."  

Now, just like abortion, the principle DOES apply to all if you really think about it. Guys need to assert OUR right to keep and bear and leave others to decide for themselves.


----------



## Larry Gude

This_person said:


> I'm not sure I agree that is what the framers intended, nor what is appropriate.
> 
> There are decisions, of course, which support your position, and some which do not.  I tend to lean on the side of citizens having rights non-citizens do not.  That does not mean that non-citizens should not also have rights, it merely means that rights given to non-citizens are not promised, in my mind, to those people, but are rather given by the kindness of citizens.



Then, on what basis would we EVER set foot in another country for war if your view was correct? We'd have no basis for taking sides. Our constitution doesn't apply to others. 

Certainly, we want ONLY American's to have the right to vote but that is not to say we want to be able to just arrest and search non citizens as the mood strikes. 

Trump is wrong in how he says a lot of things. He's not wrong to say "It is common sense to take jihadi Muslims at their word and take steps to prevent them from attacking us here."   He;s wrong to say "We need to ban ALL Muslims until we get this figured out." That's like saying "We need to lock up all the Japs until we get this figured out" or "All Italians" or "All Germans". 

What Trump says violates the Constitution, blatantly. The question is do he see the difference in the two above approaches and can he articulate that and convince people that's what he really meant.


----------



## This_person

Larry Gude said:


> Ok, thanks.
> 
> OK, women and minorities, however many white Christian males, collectively the majority of voters in the US are happy or at least accepting of the TSA. That is self evident. If most thought like me, you'd never be able to do it in the first place.
> 
> From a Constitutional standpoint, I see it as a clear violation. As an American it is an affront and an outrage. To most of us, it is acceptable security. It makes them feel safer, they like that so, it stays. I see it as a way of avoiding fixing the actual problem, of pretending to do something about it. I'm in the clear minority.
> 
> So, it supports their rights, the clear majorities rights, whomever that includes, to at least feel safe. And it, to me, is exactly what Franklin was talking about; those who would sacrifice essential liberty for temporary security will have, and deserve, neither. The majority disagrees. Clearly.


If I'm reading you correctly, you are not asserting that the TSA's existence is better for some people over others  based on their sex, sexual orientation, skin color, or anything else.  You are saying that - statistically - women and minorities are okay with their rights  being abused while white males are not.

Am I reading you correctly?


----------



## This_person

Larry Gude said:


> That's fine to take that position. I submit it is a losing one. Time after time.
> 
> Think of it this way; if women approached abortion from the standpoint of ALL of our right to privacy, it's a loser. Men wanted to prohibit their right to privacy on this issue. Didn't affect them. Some men were able to see past that and say "OK, it IS about all our privacy". Most didn't and many still don't. For guns, most of the strongest voices for those rights are male and most women take the same view men did on abortion; "I don't want you to have those rights as you're not talking for me. They don't apply to me."
> 
> Now, just like abortion, the principle DOES apply to all if you really think about it. Guys need to assert OUR right to keep and bear and leave others to decide for themselves.



The problem with equating abortion and gun rights is that abortion kills people legally and gun rights protects people legally.

Gun rights are not white-male exclusive.  The right to not be killed is not white male exclusive.


----------



## Larry Gude

This_person said:


> If I'm reading you correctly, you are not asserting that the TSA's existence is better for some people over others  based on their sex, sexual orientation, skin color, or anything else.  You are saying that - statistically - women and minorities are okay with their rights  being abused while white males are not.
> 
> Am I reading you correctly?



Their rights being abused as YOU see it. No slave owner thought his slaves rights were being abused. Few men in 1901 thought women's rights were being abused. They were fine as things were. 

Your challenge here is in seeing things from the viewpoint of the clear majority who do not object to the TSA.


----------



## This_person

Larry Gude said:


> Then, on what basis would we EVER set foot in another country for war if your view was correct? We'd have no basis for taking sides. Our constitution doesn't apply to others.
> 
> Certainly, we want ONLY American's to have the right to vote but that is not to say we want to be able to just arrest and search non citizens as the mood strikes.
> 
> Trump is wrong in how he says a lot of things. He's not wrong to say "It is common sense to take jihadi Muslims at their word and take steps to prevent them from attacking us here."   He;s wrong to say "We need to ban ALL Muslims until we get this figured out." That's like saying "We need to lock up all the Japs until we get this figured out" or "All Italians" or "All Germans".
> 
> What Trump says violates the Constitution, blatantly. The question is do he see the difference in the two above approaches and can he articulate that and convince people that's what he really meant.


Again, you're equating very disparate things.  It is FAR different to say, "we need to limit legal immigration" and "we need to lock up people".

We go to war when our interests or security are threatened or actually attacked.  That seems pretty reasonable.  People in Mexico do not have constitutional protection because they are no in the United States, so if they attack us they get attacked back.  People in HI who are citizens have the protection of the Constitution.  People in HI who are citizens of other countries have certain rights, and not others.  It is my opinion that these rights are granted by the citizens, not by the Constitution.  There are SCOTUS decisions that support and others that oppose my position.


----------



## This_person

Larry Gude said:


> Their rights being abused as YOU see it. No slave owner thought his slaves rights were being abused. Few men in 1901 thought women's rights were being abused. They were fine as things were.
> 
> Your challenge here is in seeing things from the viewpoint of the clear majority who do not object to the TSA.



I would say their challenge is in not seeing things from the point of view of the wording of the Constitution.


----------



## Larry Gude

This_person said:


> The problem with equating abortion and gun rights is that abortion kills people legally and gun rights protects people legally.
> 
> Gun rights are not white-male exclusive.  The right to not be killed is not white male exclusive.



Again, in YOUR view. The majority thinks it is a woman's right to choose. You do not have to accept it or agree. You would do well to look at it how the majority see it to understand their position. 

And, as to gun laws, same thing. A lot of people think private gun rights are part of the problem. Agree or not, that is reality and my suggestion that, like women, like minorities, if you make your argument based on YOUR rights instead of trying to speak for all, you end up at the same place. Roe is an argument for personal privacy, not just abortion. It has many times been said of slavery and the civil rights era, if one of us isn't free, none of us are.


----------



## Larry Gude

This_person said:


> I would say their challenge is in not seeing things from the point of view of the wording of the Constitution.



As you see it.


----------



## Larry Gude

This_person said:


> We go to war when our interests or security are threatened or actually attacked.  .



No, we don't.


----------



## Tilted

Larry Gude said:


> Then, on what basis would we EVER set foot in another country for war if your view was correct? We'd have no basis for taking sides. Our constitution doesn't apply to others.
> 
> Certainly, we want ONLY American's to have the right to vote but that is not to say we want to be able to just arrest and search non citizens as the mood strikes.
> 
> Trump is wrong in how he says a lot of things. He's not wrong to say "It is common sense to take jihadi Muslims at their word and take steps to prevent them from attacking us here."   He;s wrong to say "We need to ban ALL Muslims until we get this figured out." That's like saying "We need to lock up all the Japs until we get this figured out" or "All Italians" or "All Germans".
> 
> What Trump says violates the Constitution, blatantly. The question is do he see the difference in the two above approaches and can he articulate that and convince people that's what he really meant.



A number of things that Mr. Trump supports or advocates or suggests violate the Constitution. His rhetoric (not just during this campaign) suggests that he has no more respect for the Constitution than most other politicians (and people in general for that matter). And his temperament suggests to me that he'd be at least as willing to disregard it in furtherance of his goals or interests as others have typically been.

That said, I'm not sure that prohibiting the immigration (or entrance) of all Muslims - assuming that was limited to those who didn't already have a legal status - would be unconstitutional. I think there are arguments for why it would be, and I haven't thought them through enough to be sure that I think they're all wrong. But for now I'm leaning toward it not being a constitutional violation - at least not in general. Particular applications of that policy might still be. Wrongheaded? Yes. Counterproductive (even assuming a good intent)? Yes. Antithetical to what America is supposed to be? Yes. To what it should be? Yes. A deplorable suggestion? Absolutely. But unconstitutional? I'm not sure about that.

Also, I don't think it would be the same as banning Japanese or Italians or Germans when it comes to the constitutional consideration. Those are nationalities, not a religion. My initial thought is that it is more likely to be constitutionally problematic than those nationality-based bans would be.


----------



## This_person

Larry Gude said:


> You would do well to look at it how the majority see it to understand their position.



I understand their position.  I understand when a two year old is angry because I won't let them stick a fork in an outlet.  Understanding their position and giving it credence are two very different things.

It is inarguable, from a scientific point of view, that a person dies in an abortion.  How they look at it does not change that simple fact.  It is inarguable that the text of the second amendment says the government may not infringe upon the people's right to keep and bear arms.  How people look at it does not change that simple fact.

If one of us is not free, none of us are?  That implies that having a judicial system that allows for punishment of crime makes none of us free.  We are all "slaves", if you will, of our laws.  You and I are free to disagree on this because our Constitution allows it.  We can disagree with Obama, or with Cruz, or with Trump, or with Clinton - because our laws allow it.  We are not free to kill others, and we are not free to restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens from keeping and bearing arms.

That some people vote to allow it is like saying slavery was appropriate because it was legal, that Plessy v Ferguson settled the question of minority rights, etc.


----------



## Larry Gude

Tilted said:


> A number of things that Mr. Trump supports or advocates or suggests violate the Constitution. His rhetoric (not just during this campaign) suggests that he has no more respect for the Constitution than most other politicians (and people in general for that matter). And his temperament suggests to me that he'd be at least as willing to disregard it in furtherance of his goals or interests as others have typically been.
> 
> That said, I'm not sure that prohibiting the immigration (or entrance) of all Muslims - assuming that was limited to those who didn't already have a legal status - would be unconstitutional. I think there are arguments for why it would be, and I haven't thought them through enough to be sure that I think they're all wrong. But for now I'm leaning toward it not being a constitutional violation - at least not in general. Particular applications of that policy might still be. Wrongheaded? Yes. Counterproductive (even assuming a good intent)? Yes. Antithetical to what America is supposed to be? Yes. To what it should be? Yes. A deplorable suggestion? Absolutely. But unconstitutional? I'm not sure about that.
> 
> Also, I don't think it would be the same as banning Japanese or Italians or Germans when it comes to the constitutional consideration. Those are nationalities, not a religion. My initial thought is that it is more likely to be constitutionally problematic than those nationality-based bans would be.



This better not be taking away from work on my tax plan.


----------



## Tilted

Larry Gude said:


> This better not be taking away from work on my tax plan.



I'm saving that for the golf course. Between shots it will give my mind a place to go from which it will be more than happy to return when I'm ready to figure the next one out.

Plus it will help me tune out the guys I'm playing with who will be trying to get in my head.


----------



## Larry Gude

Tilted said:


> I'm saving that for the golf course. Between shots it will give my mind a place to go from which it will be more than happy to return when I'm ready to figure the next one out.
> 
> Plus it will help me tune out the guys I'm playing with who will be trying to get in my head.



I feel better already. Right man for the job!


----------



## TheLibertonian

Tilted said:


> I'm saving that for the golf course. Between shots it will give my mind a place to go from which it will be more than happy to return when I'm ready to figure the next one out.
> 
> Plus it will help me tune out the guys I'm playing with who will be trying to get in my head.



You're one of those "the letter of the law is all tha tmatters, not the spirit" huh.


----------



## Gilligan

TheLibertonian said:


> You're one of those "the letter of the law is all tha tmatters, not the spirit" huh.



Just like judges.


----------



## Tilted

TheLibertonian said:


> You're one of those "the letter of the law is all tha tmatters, not the spirit" huh.



No. Of course, it can depend on context.

But I don't take your point in asking me in response to that post. Is thinking about other stuff between golf shots against the spirit of the rules of golf? Or not letting your playing partners get in your head against the spirit of the rules?


----------



## GURPS

so after last night are you anymore or less paranoid


----------

